Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely, just an observation, but in my experience the HGCs do amplify this phenomenon. Which is just to say, people who engineer when they have kids are more likely to engineer their kids lives and who's at the HGC has more to do with parent than child.

I'm wondering what is the difference between "engineering" when you have kids and "planning" when you have kids.

Or doing neither. I feel like I am just a lot chiller and more relaxed about how things shake out with my happy accident than some of my parenting peers whose children were very very planned and their parenting style seems... not very chill.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you say these terrible things to the parent of an ASD child, learning disabled, ADHD??

Unusual brain wiring can be difficult to manage, and it's stigmatized to be weird or a nerd or whatever, and whenever we say anything we get these "cry me a river" sorts of responses.

+1 million
And some of these kids are both gifted and LD - 2e.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely, just an observation, but in my experience the HGCs do amplify this phenomenon. Which is just to say, people who engineer when they have kids are more likely to engineer their kids lives and who's at the HGC has more to do with parent than child.

I'm wondering what is the difference between "engineering" when you have kids and "planning" when you have kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely, just an observation, but in my experience the HGCs do amplify this phenomenon. Which is just to say, people who engineer when they have kids are more likely to engineer their kids lives and who's at the HGC has more to do with parent than child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom, didn't go to college (at all), work a retail job and had my son when I was 24. He was at Barnsley a few years back. I felt like Teen Mom. The other moms were like 50 years old and I was 33-35. You could tell that a lot of the parents "helped" with the long term projects. No way in hell the kids were doing the work. Got even worse at Takoma with the science fair projects. You would need a lab to pull some of that shit off.

"Like 50 years old", meaning: in their late 30s to mid 40s. Ah, youth.

LOL, I'm in my late 30s and feel young too at times because many of the parents I meet are in their late 40 and 50s. I think this is common in this area with so many professionals and having kids later. No hate from my end.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom, didn't go to college (at all), work a retail job and had my son when I was 24. He was at Barnsley a few years back. I felt like Teen Mom. The other moms were like 50 years old and I was 33-35. You could tell that a lot of the parents "helped" with the long term projects. No way in hell the kids were doing the work. Got even worse at Takoma with the science fair projects. You would need a lab to pull some of that shit off.

"Like 50 years old", meaning: in their late 30s to mid 40s. Ah, youth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of you are missing something important. Its not just about being bored, its about having peers.

As the mother of a gifted and kind of nerdy girl, I want her to have a peer group where she can feel free to express herself which she DOES not in her home school.

She doesn't like being the one always raising her hand, or always finishing her worksheets first, or finding the reading assignment painfully easy. It's about feeling disconnected and like an outsider always and "hiding your light beneath a bushel."

Having said that, yes, kids are resilient and can survive this, but I just wanted to say it's not solely about being bored.

What about the slow kids?

Or the kids with gender identity issues?

Or on the spectrum?

Or with brown skin in a predominantly white school or vice versa?

Well, that's my point. We have empathy/programs/aides etc. for a lot of the kids you mentioned, but when it comes to gifted kids the attitude is they are just spoiled snowflakes who don't know how to entertain themselves.

I know my daughter would love to meet other girls as serious about learning as she is. She has lots of friends, but I know she feels isolated sometimes and out of it when she'd rather do logic games, or math problems than play.

So, you're a navel gazer? We just need programs for the bright kids?

Sigh. Why not simply have schools that are equipped to meet the needs of all students? Kids should not be segregated.

What? A navel gazer? How did you get that? Or are you purposely misunderstanding my point?

And how did you come up with we "just need programs for the bright kids?" That's a straw man.

I have tremendous empathy for all children who face challenges. As for being "segregated" -- by race and gender, hell no. By ability, why not? Why is it so offensive to you that the math whizzes are with the other math whizzes? Are you equally enraged when the best runners make varsity track and the best singers/actors are cast as the leads in show?

Why the anti-intellectualism? I have my theories, but I'd love to hear what you have to say.

As for the idea to "simply have schools that are equipped to meet the needs of all student" -- I say yes. When I was growing up we had gifted and talented classes in our elementary school. I'm not sure why that's not done here.

Anonymous wrote:I am a single mom, didn't go to college (at all), work a retail job and had my son when I was 24. He was at Barnsley a few years back. I felt like Teen Mom. The other moms were like 50 years old and I was 33-35. You could tell that a lot of the parents "helped" with the long term projects. No way in hell the kids were doing the work. Got even worse at Takoma with the science fair projects. You would need a lab to pull some of that shit off.

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree with the subject of this discussion. I didn't know much at all about this HGC stuff, but had my son take the test just as a good experience. I started researching it online once I heard he was admitted this week, and came across these forums. Wow, they are almost enough to make one rethink getting involved in the HGC. But I can only assume, as others have said, that the majority of parents do not take this so seriously. Yikes.

Anonymous wrote:I admit I don't have the energy to slog through this thread, but you all do realize that the people bitching and moaning on here about HGC are not representative of the entire parent population of HGC, right? They're a self-selected, highly vocal, angry and or/helicopter-y, anonymous group with lots of time on their hands.

Our next door neighbor has a kid in HGC. She is not the least bit annoying, obnoxious, or hard-charging, and she does not use DCUM. I'd guess she represents an equally sized contingent of HGC parents as DCUM users do.

Anonymous wrote:IMO, one of the best way to learn grammar is by reading quality books. I don't think they teach grammar as a separate subject matter, but I think it's interspersed with LA curriculum through creative writing and such. Diagramming sentences and such is akin to endless math worksheets. Kids start to hate learning it. I don't think we need to continue with the "this is how I learned it and I turned out fine" way of teaching. If we know better, then we ought to do better for our kids.

This article discusses this very thing:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/the-wrong-way-to-teach-grammar/284014/

"A century of research shows that traditional grammar lessons—those hours spent diagramming sentences and memorizing parts of speech—don’t help and may even hinder students’ efforts to become better writers. Yes, they need to learn grammar, but the old-fashioned way does not work.

This finding—confirmed in 1984, 2007, and 2012 through reviews of over 250 studies—is consistent among students of all ages, from elementary school through college. For example, one well-regarded study followed three groups of students from 9th to 11th grade where one group had traditional rule-bound lessons, a second received an alternative approach to grammar instruction, and a third received no grammar lessons at all, just more literature and creative writing. The result: No significant differences among the three groups—except that both grammar groups emerged with a strong antipathy to English. "